Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State understand the contribution that is made to morale by the knowledge that outstanding medical services are available in Selly Oak hospital and, of course, at the rehabilitation centre at Headley Court. If he has not yet visited either the hospital or the rehabilitation centre, may I urge him to do so? He will see at first hand the courage of the patients and the skill of the staff.

Ann McKechin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	This Government have done more than any other in recent history to do more about fuel poverty. In 2007 alone, the winter fuel payment took 200,000 households throughout the UK out of fuel poverty, and we are determined to tackle the problem even further through the new Energy Bill and take a further 100,000 pensioner households in Scotland out of poverty. We are certainly not complacent, although we see no irregularity in the non-oil-gas and electric-fuel market, which might otherwise cause us to consider regulation at this point, However, we will certainly keep these issues under review.

Michael Weir: The Scottish house conditions survey shows that those who do not have access to mains gas are twice as likely to be in fuel poverty as those who do have such access. The Secretary of State mentioned earlier the importance of cold weather payments. Given the current situation, will she press her ministerial colleagues to extend and increase those payments to other vulnerable groups?

John Robertson: I thank and congratulate my right hon. Friend on his answer. Is he as concerned as I am at the possibility that, because of the Scottish Executive's proposal to change the rules for the payment of education maintenance allowance, 7,000 young people will end up on the dole, as they will not receive their £10 or £20, given the new threshold of £30? Is that not a disgrace? What can my right hon. Friend do to help these young people?

Gordon Brown: The Chilcot inquiry has drawn up a list of those people that it wishes to interview and has invited the people on the dates that it has done. I will follow the recommendations of the Chilcot committee. I have nothing to hide on this matter and I am happy to give evidence. Equally, at this time, I thought that the debate in the House was that the Chilcot inquiry should decide when people were heard.

Gordon Prentice: Will the Government back my amendment to the Constitutional Reform Bill next week that will rid Parliament of parasitic non-doms?

Lynne Jones: This week, a Member of the House has resigned, with mental illness being a factor. I make no comment about individual cases, but as the law stands any Member of this House who suffers a bout of serious mental illness can be automatically disqualified from office, no matter what the prospects of recovery. That is wrong, and it would never be tolerated for a physical illness, no matter how debilitating. Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity presented by the Constitutional Reform Bill to implement the Speaker's Conference recommendation that this wrong should be righted?

David Willetts: I beg to move,
	That this House notes with concern the increase in the number of young people not in employment, education or training and the fall in the number of apprenticeship starts; further notes that there will be a shortage of university places in 2010 and that the continuing problems with the Student Loans Company will impact on those students beginning their studies this year; calls on the Government to clarify its position on university places after the annual Higher Education and Funding Council for England grant letter and on imposing fines on those higher education institutions that take on more students to meet the 50 per cent. participation target; further calls on the Government to consider proposals for the rapid expansion of apprenticeships and to free further education colleges from stifling bureaucracy so they may meet the needs of young people; and urges the Government to offer 10,000 additional university places in order to build aspiration, opportunity and a competitive economy.
	The basis for the motion is very simple: sadly, it is a widely recognised fact that young people in our country are the first and worst victims of this recession. The shocking figures are all too familiar. The number of young people not in education, employment or training is now more than 1 million-it is 1,082,000. The rate of youth unemployment in Britain, with 950,000 young people unemployed, is one of the worst in Europe. In fact, it is a sad irony that the Government were first elected in 1997 on a pledge card that they would reduce youth unemployment by 250,000. Under their watch, it has risen by more than 250,000 since then. That is a very serious challenge to us all.
	This is not just about youth unemployment or the fact that young people have been the first and worst victims of the recession. It looks as though the higher education and training budget has proved to be one of the first and worst victims of the fiscal crisis that the Government have created. The Opposition understand the need for tough measures and for public spending to be brought down, because that is the mess that the Government have created and that has to be tackled. However, we have called this debate because we want to hear from the Minister what measures the Government are taking to tackle the crisis, and a full explanation of how he believes the cuts that have been announced in stages over the past few months will impact on universities and colleges. I have to say to the Minister that the suspicion is that the Department he that represents has fallen victim to the political arguments in the Labour Government between- [ Interruption. ] The Minister denies it, but not with an entirely straight face. The arguments are between the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, who famously said on 20 September 2009,
	"I said...that I wanted to see us carrying on with real terms rises in our key public services"-
	we will not hear the word "cuts" pass his lips-and the First Secretary of State, Lord Mandelson, who said on 14 September 2009 that
	"spending in some areas will be reduced".
	When challenged on whether front-line services would be under the spotlight, Lord Mandelson said:
	"Everything is going to have to be examined."
	The First Secretary of State is making an example of his Department in a strategic debate that he is having with some of his Cabinet colleagues about what approach the Government should take to the fiscal crisis. If that is what he is arguing as part of Labour party strategy, we should not be surprised that it looks like, so far, by far the biggest cuts have fallen within the budgets of higher and further education.
	It is worth being clear about what those cuts are, so it would be helpful if the Minister explained them properly. Our understanding is that a £180 million efficiency saving was announced in the 2009 Budget; a £600 million further reduction was announced in the autumn statements; and a £135 million further reduction was announced in a letter to the Higher Education Funding Council on 22 December. That adds up to what is believed to be a £915 million cut. What steps is he taking to deliver those reductions and what does he think they mean for the numbers of students and the quality of the student experience? We want to hold him to account, and universities need to know exactly what the cuts will entail.
	Buried at the end of the letter to the HEFC was a revealing figure that brought home the scale of the reductions. At the beginning of this period, in 2007-08 prices, the planned unit of funding-the amount of teaching support for students-was £4,140. According to the letter to the HEFC, that will fall to £3,950 in 2010-11 in constant prices. That looks to be the key figure, and it is contrary to all the assurances we have had that teaching would be protected as part of this exercise. How does the Minister plan to deliver those significant reductions in the higher education budget?
	We also hope to hear from the Minister about what the reductions mean for the number of student places. We are close to the 15 January deadline for applications-we understand that it was extended by a few days because of the weather-but can he indicate to the House how many university applications he expects this autumn? From provisional figures collected earlier in the year, we know that we were already looking at a 12 per cent. increase in applications for 2010 on top of applications in 2009-and 2009 was itself a record year.
	We understand the reasons for those big increases in applications. With high rates of unemployment, many more young people apply to go to university, and of course there was a mini baby boom in the early '90s, which means that there is now a large number of 18 and 19-year-olds in that cohort. We want to hear from the Minister how many places will be available at universities for this further surge in the number of applicants. The fear is that there will be an increase in the number of young people applying and an absolute decline in the number of places available for them.
	That would be an extraordinary position for the Government to have got themselves into. They have an official target of getting 50 per cent. of people into university. First the Government set the target, and then last year universities offered extra places for those students. Now, however, we are told that institutions will be fined for taking on those extra students. This must be the first time a Government have fined an institution for taking the steps necessary to reach the Government's own announced target-in this case, of more people going to university.
	The Opposition do not believe in artificial targets, such as the 50 per cent. target, and are comfortable with the Robbins principle, which states simply that
	"courses of higher education should be available to all those who are qualified by ability and attainment to pursue them and who wish to do so".
	That seems to us a much more sensible approach than artificial targets. At the same time, we have practical proposals for how we could find more places for students in the crisis year of 2010.

Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman has raised that point before. He said that it is a practical proposal, but will he tell us how he has costed it and what its cost is, including the deadweight cost of giving a discount to those who would repay anyway?

David Willetts: We have made a simple and cautious assumption that by summer 2010, there will be £30 billion of outstanding student debt. We believe, from looking at similar but not identical schemes in New Zealand and Australia, that it is reasonable and cautious to assume that 1 per cent. of that debt will be repaid early-£300 million.
	In order to avoid the problems now faced by Ministers, which the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) mentioned, we have fully costed university places. We have not used places costing less than the average-if anything, we have costed them slightly more highly than we believe is the average. We have said that a university place costs £10,000 a year in total public funding, which includes maintenance and teaching support. Over three years, therefore, the full cost in public expenditure of a student place is £30,000, which means that the £300 million that we have identified would provide an extra 10,000 places.
	That is a carefully costed, fully explained model that does not-this touches on the concerns that the hon. Gentleman expressed-involve any reduction in the unit of resource per student. Those would be extra places on top of the Government's planned number of student places. Given that we are waiting for the proposals from Lord Browne's funding review, and given the inexorable looming crisis and special circumstances facing us this summer, that is the right thing to do. Unlike Ministers, who appear to be proposing a reduction in the number of places for students just when there is a surge in applications, we are confronting a practical problem that needs addressing, because the Conservative party cares about educational opportunities for young people who wish to go to university.
	When Ministers announced their latest round of cuts before Christmas, they talked about delivering more education courses for students through two-year degrees. We fully understand the case for such degrees. They are by no means a complete solution to the pressures faced by universities, but they are the kind of option that they have to consider. As so often happens with the Government, however, they proposed apparently new ideas that in reality have been around for some time and which they themselves have been undermining through their own policies. Will the Minister confirm, therefore, that in the same week that the briefing was issued saying that we should not worry about the public expenditure reductions because in future we would have so many two-year courses, the HEFC announced a reduction in funding for foundation degrees, which are one way in which the shorter courses are delivered? Such initiatives are already in the system. The HEFC has said that it will
	"reduce the funding provided through the targeted allocation to support foundation degrees, and keep this under review in light of any further requests for efficiency savings."
	So at the same time that this supposedly radical new approach to universities is being floated, the funding for the initiative that is supposed to bring it to pass is quietly being strangled. That is an example of the Government's spin running along completely detached from the reality.
	We are pleased that Lord Browne's review is a funding review-something that we pressed for-and not simply a fees review. We hope that it will tackle the underlying problems and pressures facing universities. Meanwhile, we are concerned to tackle the challenge that our universities will face in 2010, because we do not believe that the Government are doing so.
	While we have the Minister here in the Chamber, let me ask him about another concern, which we realise many students still face, namely the continuing operational problems of the Student Loans Company. Let me remind the House of how the Government launched the policy in July 2006 and of the expression used by the previous Higher Education Minister, the hon. Member for Harlow (Bill Rammell). For those of us on the Opposition Benches who wrestle with our constituents' problems, it is worth reminding the House that the case for the new system was that it would result in
	"clearer information, faster decisions, timely payments and accurate repayments."
	That is what we were promised in 2006, when the policy was launched. Since then, of course, we have had a shocking report, revealing not just the many cases of maladministration and incompetence, but problems that go back to the Department, which was endlessly chopping and changing the rules for student maintenance, creating a system that was far too complicated for the Student Loans Company to administer.
	I hope that the Minister will tell the House, first, how many students are still waiting for their student grant forms to be processed and for the money to be received; secondly, how many disabled students in particular are still suffering from such problems; and thirdly, what assurance he can give us that the problems that are still hanging over from last year will not interfere with the efficient handling of new claims for 2010, which are starting now. We know, from the spirals of problems that the tax credits system, the Rural Payments Agency and the Child Support Agency have got into, that the real problems start when we do not sort out the first year's problems before the second year of cases arrive. That is why the issue is so important. We need to know that the overhang of historical problems will not affect the next round of student applications.

Kevin Brennan: It is because they do not add up. However, will the hon. Gentleman answer the question that I asked him earlier: what estimate has he made of the deadweight cost of his proposal, in relation to those who already pay back early?

Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend has mentioned FE colleges. He will remember the fiasco earlier this year when colleges such as the former Dunstable college, now Central Bedfordshire college, in my constituency were out of pocket. That college was left £700,000 out of pocket because of the situation regarding plans that it had proposed and money that it could not get back. Will he touch on what he foresees for the future of such FE colleges, after the way that they have been treated, in relation to their capital budget going forward?

Joan Humble: I have met many young people in Blackpool who have benefited from the high aspirations put to them by the Government. Through the Government's Aimhigher programme and the reintroduction of grants, those young people are now going into higher education, which they had never before have even thought about. They are exactly the young people who have benefited from the Minister's and the Government's programme.

David Lammy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We stand by Aimhigher, and I know that my hon. Friend will be very sad to know that the Opposition are committed to abolishing that programme, which supports the poorest young people across the country to make their way into higher education. I hope that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) will clarify his position on Aimhigher when he concludes the debate. We wish that the Opposition would match their words with deeds, which yet again we have not heard from the Conservatives today-it has to be action, not just words.
	The Opposition motion talks about with the Government's higher education policies, but it does not, of course, talk about what we have achieved, so it is important that I put that on the record this afternoon. Since 1997, the total investment in higher education has risen by 25 per cent. in real terms, while spending on science and research has more than doubled. That is a Labour achievement. The last decade has seen 340,000 more students get a place in our universities because of the 50 per cent. aspiration, making about 2 million more home students in total. Again, that is more than ever before in our country's history-another Labour achievement. There are more people applying to university from non-traditional backgrounds and from the most deprived constituencies than ever before, with applications from constituencies like mine up not just by 10, 20 or 50 per cent., but by 100 per cent. That has happened under this Government and is a result of such programmes as Aimhigher, which Conservative Members would scrap. Once again, this is a Labour achievement.

David Lammy: The people of Wales, who democratically elected the devolved Assembly, will be offended by that caricature of it as a regional development agency.
	In the grant letter to the Higher Education Funding Council that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State issued last month, he asked the university sector to make relatively modest cuts efficiently. The cuts will be made in a way that reduces the impact on front-line services. For example, the planned reduction in funding for teaching is only around 1 per cent. of the overall budget. It is our belief that, in times of pressure, we need to use money effectively. I hope that hon. Members will recognise that families across the country are making cuts to their budgets of much more than 1 per cent.
	The Chancellor, in the pre-Budget report, asks for further savings of £600 million in 2010-11 and 2011-12, but we have not yet had the comprehensive spending review. That will come later in the year, so it is wrong to give the impression that there is a £900 million cut in the next financial year. There is nothing of the kind. There is a saving that the sector has to meet, but there will be a small cut of 1 per cent. in the teaching grant. We are committed to continuing to invest in capital spend to ensure that the infrastructure is in place.
	The Opposition have said that they would make deeper cuts, quicker and sooner. That is what the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said at the weekend. Previously under the Tories we saw unrestricted and unfunded university expansion, with institutions going to the wall, and that is what would happen if they took £610 million out of the HE budget-as they proposed 18 months ago-and if even more severe cuts were made. We would see failing financial support, stagnating student numbers and the undercutting of research and science. I remind the hon. Member for Havant of the Save British Science campaign of those days. That is the absolute opposite of what we have now, with further investment in science and research-

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman has failed to listen carefully to what I have said, because I have made the position clear. We are talking about an addition in the grant letter that we issued just before Christmas. Our position stands in direct contrast to the Conservatives' proposals and attitude to higher education in the past, and to the deeper cuts that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has outlined already.

Stephen Williams: Yes. It has consistently been our position that the income hypothecated from fees that universities currently receive from the Treasury via the Higher Education Foundation Council should continue. In cash terms, there is very little difference in the short term in any event. The Treasury continues to hand over the roughly £3 billion a year equivalent of fee income, and it will be quite a long time before the present generation of graduates repays that money in cash terms. What we are focusing on is, in fact, an accounting difference. By the end of that six-year period we will certainly have found a better way of funding higher education in the long term. As I shall say to Lord Browne very shortly, I hope that his review will take an open-minded approach not just to an extension of the fees model, but to alternative models that have been proposed and are worthy of consideration.
	Let me now leave the subject of central Government, for local government has a role as well. I was pleased to note on Monday this week that Bristol city council, which is now under Liberal Democrat control, has welcomed 19 new apprenticeships in fields as diverse as security services, recycling, finance and the museum service. However, it is not just the state that has a contribution to make. A contribution can also be made by social enterprise, which is a theme that I have raised many times during debates of this sort. I am thinking particularly of organisations such as Aspire, which, in my constituency and elsewhere in Bristol, gives work to people who are not in education, employment or training-as well as recent offenders-in, for instance, ground maintenance, window cleaning and other practical skills.
	That social enterprise and many others would benefit from more flexibility on the part of both central Government and local government in the awarding of contracts. The Government have a multi-billion-pound procurement budget, but far too much of it is spent with large companies rather than small and medium-sized enterprises or social enterprises. Charities also have an important role to play. I have often mentioned Fairbridge, which is based in my constituency, and I recently visited the Bristol Foyer in the city centre. All those organisations work hard to provide young people with an informal route back to learning and employment.
	In the long term, we need to develop a low-carbon economy in which people also have digital skills. Another Liberal Democrat policy that does not receive much attention from the other parties involves the offer of bursaries to enable people to study stem subjects at university. That is important, as is the advice given to children at school on the opportunities that are open to them, so that they know that a career in engineering is not only worth while in itself but an important contributor to the finding of solutions to the challenge of climate change.
	The Conservative motion mentions the Student Loans Company. I hope that the Minister will confirm not only that the existing, or in some cases the new, management of the company has learnt the lessons of the debacle of the past year, but that he is tracking its progress to ensure that the next tranche of applicants do not face the same situation.
	Mention has been made of the £600 million of further cuts in higher education that were proposed in the pre-Budget report. The Minister said that there be no comprehensive spending review. That was, of course, the choice of the Government and the Chancellor, rather than the result of some external factor visited on them. However, the pre-Budget report specifically mentioned that those cuts would be imposed on the existing arrangements for student maintenance. Will the Minister clarify what he thinks will happen to student maintenance, and also to the science budget? We are still in the 10-year guarantee period during which the current Prime Minister and the former science Minister, Lord Sainsbury, said that the Government would ring-fence funding for science, yet the pre-Budget report implied that the science budget was one of the options for cuts. If it is not, why did the pre-Budget report imply that it was?
	The pre-Budget report also mentioned two-year degree courses. I am not necessarily conceptually opposed to them, if it is possible for students to complete, say, vocational degree courses in a condensed period of two rather than three years. Foundation degrees already exist on the basis of that principle, and I see no reason why it should not be considered for other degrees. However, we should bear in mind the practical implications, given that this country is a signatory to the Bologna process. Perhaps we could hear from the Government what discussions have taken place about the possibility of a shorter English degree course. English degree courses are already among the shortest in Europe. Surely, if there is to be a fundamental reform of higher education provision, it should be well thought out, and the result of a review rather than a knee-jerk response to what we hope are short-term budgetary pressures.
	The motion also mentions freeing up further education. Last night I was pleased to respond to a speech given by Professor Alison Wolf on the occasion of the launch of her book "An Adult Approach to Further Education" at the Institute of Economic Affairs. Among her many interesting comments was the observation that further education is treated unfairly in this country, particularly in the light of the resources given to higher education. We believe that in the long term there should be a more level playing field, especially when further education is delivered in a further education or community college context.
	In conclusion, we need a fairer system of funding across higher education, further education and apprenticeships. If we are to have that fair and open intellectual-if not financial-market, students must be well informed through receiving impartial advice and guidance. So far in this recession, young people have borne the brunt of our worsening economic circumstances, and they need measures to help them now, but in the long run, it is through education and skills that we can drive social mobility and build a sustainable and prosperous future.

Tim Boswell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis), who is always generous and very practical.
	This is an important debate. I should say to the House that one of the reasons why I shall be brisk is that I need to nip out briefly before the conclusion of the debate, but of course I want to hear the Minister wind up. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) for introducing the motion and for the forensic case that he deployed in his criticism of Government policy.
	The House will know that I was formerly a further and higher education Minister, so I cover the whole remit of this debate, as it were. At my stage of a parliamentary career, it is not appropriate to be unnecessarily partisan, except perhaps at the beginning. I will merely say, in view of the difficulties in which the Minister found himself in relation to the current situation, as did the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, that I would use a motto modified from a couple from the past: "If you're in an 'ole, start aspirating." That is how one tries to get out of it.
	I also say to the Minister-I need not give him a completely free ride-that in my experience the Government have plumbed new depths of dysfunction. That applies across the field-whether, at one level, with what went wrong with the further education capital programme or, at another, with the concerns expressed yesterday in  The Guardian, in terms that I never experienced as a Minister, by the Russell group, which said that it might take six months to bring the university sector to its knees-a view that was echoed by the University and College Union. In fact, I felt that that was a little over the top, but there are definitely problems.
	I have been, and remain, concerned about people at the other end of the spectrum, specifically NEETs-those not in education, employment or training-and those who have learning difficulties or are without the necessary basic skills. In the first place, the House needs to understand the impact of recessionary pressures, which create what I would call a concertina effect. Graduates who are having difficulty in getting jobs may trade down to do less demanding jobs, below level 4, and in the process-it will not be their intention-tend to squeeze out of employment altogether those who are less well qualified. They will be under-fulfilling their potential while cutting off the potential for others.
	We cannot deal with the problem of NEETs without reaching back into the school system and improving opportunities outside the conventional routes of the academic world from year 7 onwards. I am pleased to see the Minister for Further Education acknowledging that. That must be accompanied by proper independent guidance and mentoring, as people need help. We still need to devise-we have been saying this for 50 or 100 years-an examination and qualifications structure that complements the traditional royal road through A-levels and on to university with an alternative credible route involving proper concentration on subjects with an emphasis on at least part-vocational diplomas locked in with apprenticeships, without closing off the routes to progression. At all stages, certainly after year 11, we need greater hands-on involvement by potential employers-that also applies as people move on to continued education-and they may have to help to finance the process. There must be a common understanding of the best financial frameworks that we can afford to support learning, matched by a coherent set of qualifications.
	I have spoken elsewhere about this, and I think it is no secret that I am something of a radical in this regard. I want a national qualifications framework, on which the Government are at last making some progress, I want a credit system, and I want the support system eventually to move into that area, although we will have to wait for the Brown report before we come to a final view on that. Above all, we must not switch off thinking about doing this in the recession-we need to use it as a springboard to development. The key themes of the system should be coherence, something for everyone, and flexibility in that no administrative, financial or qualification hurdle should frustrate those who, at whatever level they find themselves, want to build a career or simply-we should not forget this-enjoy the merits of education itself to lead a more fulfilling life.
	One of the more interesting and challenging hours that I have spent recently was with a group of NEETs in my constituency. Frankly, when we started I was a bit apprehensive as to how we were going to get through the hour, but it turned into a quite rewarding dialogue. Of course, I remained aware of the problems before us, but there was a belief developing that they were not insuperable, provided that as a society we are prepared to put in the time-the golden element that we often forget-to provide sympathetic support and mentoring and to treat people, whatever their level, as individuals with their own strengths, weaknesses, needs, opportunities and potential.
	I want to close my brief remarks by addressing two issues of principle that I have long embraced, which we will continue to need to have validated long after we have put the recession behind us. The first is the gross misconception that learning activity is either academic or "vocational", as if the professional classes have no practical skills and the sons of toil have no need of anything but the essential, elementary manual skills. Under the pressures of the recession, matters are made much worse by the understandable demands of employers, who say, "I'm short: send me six brickies," or six typists-whatever it may be-as though people with vocational skills were not better employees if they had an educational hinterland.

David Davies: The Government have today once again set out the narrative that they have built up during the recession of the past year or so. The narrative that they like to put forward is something like this: "The recession was nothing to do with us. It was all caused by other people. Thanks to our wonderful Prime Minister it has now been sorted out in this country, and we will shortly be returning to growth." That is the message that they want young people to hear.
	However, young people are not fooled, and they know that the reality is very different. It was summed up by the headline in the business section of  The Sunday Times this week, which on the face of it was quite positive. It was something along the lines of, "City confident that Britain will keep its triple A rating". However, on reading a little of the article it became clear that the City was confident about that only because it is certain that after the general election, whoever wins will have to take urgent steps to reduce public spending.
	The Government may try to maintain that the recession has now passed over and that we are coming out of it, but it is very possible that the recession proper has not even begun yet. It was caused by policies that were partly the fault of the Government, such as not regulating the banks properly, and made worse by the fact that they failed, even during the times when the economy was growing, to spend what they were taking in taxation. It will be made considerably worse by the fact that with one last throw of the dice, one last gamble, they decided to borrow billions upon billions of pounds-something like £180 billion-to try to keep the party going before the general election. That is what will concern young people in the years ahead, and it is right that it should. Whoever wins the next general election, the news will be very bad.
	Of course, the reality been disguised from many people, partly because of the failings of the education system, which should have delivered the high-tech work force that we need to thrive in a globalised economy. We have heard great rhetoric today about what the Government have done for young people and graduates, but the reality is that one in four people still leave their primary school unable to read and write properly. One in four are not getting any GCSEs at grade C or above, and one in six 16 to 24-year-olds are not in education, employment or training. It was a Labour Government who promised us a welfare state that would look after people from the cradle to the grave, but in education they have delivered a failure from the nursery to the bursary.  [Interruption.] I am happy to give way to Ministers if they wish to intervene.

John Hayes: The Minister can confirm that when he sums up, I hope, rather than interrupting my rather attractive rhetorical flow at this moment.
	The Government failed because they failed to engage employers. It is time to change. A Conservative Government will make it much easier for companies to run apprenticeships. The Minister for Higher Education and Intellectual Property invited us to give a description of our policies. We never resist that kind of invitation, so let me remind him what those policies are. We will tighten the apprenticeship frameworks so that they are relevant to each sector of the economy, we will cut the bureaucracy that surrounds apprenticeships, we will pay employers directly for the training they provide, we will boost the apprenticeship programme by almost £800 million in support from Train to Gain to help those most in need and, because we know that small and medium-sized enterprises need extra support, we will pay an apprenticeship bonus of £2,000 for each apprenticeship at an SME.
	As the Minister should know, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant pointed out at the beginning of the debate, we will also introduce an all-age careers service so that people get the right advice about the right opportunities to be trained and educated. We will also put in place special additional support for NEETs, through a NEETs fund. Those are tangible, costed real policies. I do not know whether the Minister had not heard about them before today, but I know that he will go home a happier man for having done so.
	The House of Lords inquiry on apprenticeships concluded that one of the biggest barriers to young people's participating in apprenticeship training was the lack of basic skills, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley). Ofsted told the inquiry that a conservative estimate would be that 300,000 16 to 19-year-olds were unable to access apprenticeships because of a lack of basic skills. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said, we need to build a pathway that helps more young people into apprenticeships and skilled employment. We need a programme of pre-apprenticeship training, with key skills such as numeracy and literacy embedded in learning a trade. That will demonstrate to young people the importance of such skills to their working life.
	For the hard core of NEETs, who will at first need to take small steps back into learning and employment, we will establish extra FE college places every year. There will be 50,000 new places each year in colleges that are liberated-freed from the stifling bureaucracy that was identified by Andrew Foster in a report for the Government years ago, yet the Government have done so little about it. From new college courses through pre-apprenticeship training and real work-based apprenticeships to higher apprenticeships and foundation degrees, I want to build a ladder of opportunity that will be respected by learners and valued by employers.
	The House would be disappointed if I did not say a brief word about the student loans crisis that was rightly identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant as a fundamental failure on the part of this Government. That is not merely the view of Members on the Opposition Benches or of critics of the Government on their own Benches. The report that the Government commissioned concluded that the Department itself was in part to blame, because of the confusion that it caused by moving the goalposts every time the Student Loans Company tried to organise its affairs.
	I want to elicit from the Minister for Further Education, Skills, Apprenticeships and Consumer Affairs, when he sums up, some answers to specific questions. It is immensely regrettable, as I am sure that he realises, that, as the review revealed,
	"new students...have experienced real and significant problems in applying for financial support".
	I wrote to the Minister for Higher Education and Intellectual Property just before Christmas. I did not want to spoil his turkey dinner, but I felt that these questions needed to be answered. I am disappointed to say that I have still not had a reply, and so I hope that the Minister for Further Education, Skills, Apprenticeships and Consumer Affairs will answer these questions.
	On 10 December last year, Ministers indicated to the House that the backlog in cases would be cleared by the weekend of 12 December? Will the Minister confirm whether that was the case. If it is not, why not?
	Will institutions that have used access to learning funds to cover the gap between students applying for and receiving loans receive support from either the Higher Education Funding Council or the Department? Does the Minister accept the conclusion of an independent review that many students missed the published deadlines for applications because they were not clearly stated or well publicised, and not well understood by applicants. Perhaps he could repeat what his ministerial colleagues have said: that the Government are offering a guarantee that there will be no January admissions crisis. It would be wrong were the House to learn later that the lessons had not been learned, and that students applying for admission to colleges and universities in January and February had faced the same difficulties as their predecessors.
	Will the Minister give an absolute assurance that there will be no crisis this year? He has had long enough to give such an assurance, and the House wants to hear it. He knows what my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) reminded him: the Government have failed. They have failed to reduce the number of those not in education, employment or training, to expand real apprenticeships and to help more disadvantaged people into university.
	I want to deal with two points that the Minister raised. He will be familiar with the Higher Education Statistics Agency's performance indicators that were referenced in the 2006 Dearing report. However, the indicators remain stubbornly similar to those in the report, which revealed that working-class participation in universities had increased by just 1 per cent. since 1995. Participation programmes such as Aimhigher, on which the Government spent more than £2 billion a year, have produced a 1 per cent. increase in participation by working-class students.
	I am not saying that we do not need to advise and guide, which is why we want an all-age careers service, and I am not saying that we do not need to address that problem, which is why we want to look at modes of learning, access points to learning and all the other ways in which we can widen participation-widening participation is top of my agenda. Let us not live in cloud cuckoo land though, but consider and address the facts, and see what we can do to change them.
	I seek some clarity on one other matter, because the House would expect it to be on the record: the success or failure of Train to Gain. The Minister knows that the 2009 NAO report concluded that
	"the programme has not provided good value for money",
	that the deadweight cost was about 50 per cent., and that many employers said that they would have arranged the training anyway, although that would not necessarily have resulted in a qualification. Train to Gain is immensely cost ineffective-and Ministers know it.
	We have had a decade of failure-millions of shattered dreams and broken lives. Labour Members know that but are embarrassed to admit to it. They are too timid to own up and too faint-hearted to challenge. Indeed, if Labour MPs had populated the Bounty, there would not have been a mutiny and Captain Bligh would have got away with his punitive regime. Well, we will not let the Government continue to punish Britain's youth and Britain's future any longer. It is time for those who have failed to step aside and let those with perseverance and passion step forward, to let Britain grow and to bring new hope, jobs and opportunity. The Government are out of ideas, they are out of good people, they are out of tune, out of step and out of line-and very soon they will be out of office, too.

Greg Clark: I shall talk about nuclear later. I am pro-nuclear; I believe we need to get on with it. I think that one of the problems we face is that we now have a gap between the end of the planned life of our current fleet of nuclear power stations and the earliest possible date at which we can get new ones. That gap should not be there; we should have avoided creating it.
	The Secretary of State expresses a view with which we all agree-that we need increased capacity in our gas storage system. I was surprised by the wording of the Liberal amendment, which is alarmingly complacent. I hope that at least between those on the two Front Benches there will be agreement on the action that is now required to guarantee Britain's energy security, not least because that action involves long-term decisions. We should not seek to make short-term differences. Companies will make major investment decisions worth £200 billion and lasting 20, 30 or 40 years. We should aim for a long-term view of diversity and more robust sources of supply.
	British energy policy has been exposed as out of date. It was designed 25 years ago for a world in which Britain had an excess of generating capacity, where we enjoyed the security of growing North sea oil and gas production, and where concerns about local pollution and international climate change were not as intense as they are now. However, power plants get old, fossil fuel reserves dwindle away, and pollution builds up to crisis proportions. The Government have had ample warning on all those fronts.
	Power plant lifetimes are a matter of record. The Government knew that our existing fleet of power stations would need to be replaced. The peaking and decline of North sea production has long been predicted and was already under way at the beginning of the Government's first term, with obvious implications for dependence on fossil fuel imports. In their 1997 election manifesto, the Government promised a 20 per cent. cut in carbon emissions by 2010, thereby serving notice on themselves that a transition to cleaner sources of energy would be required.
	Despite the transformation some time ago of the basic assumptions underlying energy policy, the policy framework has remained fundamentally unchanged. A framework designed for an age of plenty is still with us in an age of insecurity. Sometimes Government are overtaken by events, but in respect of energy policy, the Government saw what was coming and did not do enough about it.
	Let me explain where that leaves us in terms of the main areas of energy use-first, electricity. Back in July the Department of Energy and Climate Change unveiled its energy plan for the coming decade. It is good that there is such a plan and it is perhaps the most important document that the Department has published to date, but it contained a dark secret. It revealed that Ministers were expecting blackouts across Britain in the years ahead.
	A chart in that document showed a big rise in what are called expected energy unserved, otherwise known as power cuts. From virtually no blackouts now, the Government said that they expected the level to rise to 3,000 MWh by 2017. That is the equivalent of three nuclear power stations shutting down at the same time, or to put it another way, 1 million people losing power for 15 minutes more than 20 times in the course of a year. Worse still, shortages would most likely strike at times of peak demand-that is, on the coldest winter evenings. The head of Ofgem warned us that the years following 2015 could be very cold indeed.  [Interruption.]
	The Minister sometimes complains, as he is doing now from a sedentary position, that the chart is taken out of context and that we ought not to make use of it in this way. We have always been very careful to make its context clear. It is an official projection included in an official Government publication, freely available not just to the Opposition, but to anyone considering whether to invest in this country over the next 10 years.
	Let me turn to coal. Our power sector, in which I include coal, will certainly need investment. Anyone who believes in diversity, as I do, needs to look at fuel sources right across the range. It is worth noting that, in the course of the big freeze that we have had during over the past week, coal plant has at times supplied more than 40 per cent. of our electricity, helping to relieve pressure on gas supplies. The pressure on gas supplies would have been very much worse if we had been in the situation that we will arrive at in the next few years, when a third of our coal generating capacity is withdrawn.

Greg Clark: There will be a future for UK coal within that, but it depends on a number of factors. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we import a lot of coal from Russia. Coal is clearly more readily available and easily stocked than gas, so it contributes to energy security. I share his concerns about the safety situation there. We want to ensure that we operate using supplies that come from sources we can be proud of and confident about. I hope that in due course we can have more of a source of supply from this country as well. However, that depends on making progress on carbon capture and storage. If we subscribe, rightly, to a set of emissions targets that require CO2 emissions to come down by 80 per cent. by 2050, we will need to make a breakthrough on CCS if we are to able to use coal as an addition to our diversity of supply.

Edward Miliband: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from 'House' to end and add:
	"notes that around 20 gigawatts of new power generation is either under construction or has been consented to; believes that during a time of historically low temperatures and the highest ever gas demand in recent days, the country's energy infrastructure has shown resilience; further notes the increase in gas import capacity by 500 per cent. in the last decade, and the increase in the diversity of sources of gas, including liquefied natural gas and gas imports through interconnectors with Norway and continental Europe; commends the Planning Act 2008, which has created the circumstances for greater onshore gas storage as well as for new nuclear power stations and other low carbon energy infrastructure, and the Energy Act 2008 which has created the circumstances for greater offshore gas storage; backs the development of the grid to make it ready for a low-carbon energy mix; supports the Government's drive towards greater energy efficiency in homes through programmes such as Warm Front, the Carbon Emissions Reductions Target and Community Energy Savings Programme, all of which contribute to fighting fuel poverty, and in businesses through programmes such as the forthcoming Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Schemes; commends the Government's wider plans to embark on the Great British Refurb, where up to seven million homes will have whole house makeovers by 2020; and further supports an approach based on strategic government and dynamic markets that maintains the country's energy security as well as developing more diverse energy supplies, including clean coal, renewable and nuclear energy.".
	The speech made by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) is a curious speech to follow. One is normally tempted to say that the Opposition offer easy answers, but on the central issues that he complained about, he offered no answers. If ever we needed confirmation that it is up to those on the Labour Benches to answer the difficult questions that Britain faces, the hon. Gentleman's speech was an example of that.
	I want to start by thanking the people who have played such an important role in protecting our energy supplies during the longest spell of cold weather for 30 years. I thank the operators and engineers of the national grid, the people working in the oil and gas fields of the North sea and the people who have gone out to repair power lines in the most inclement conditions for their work. They are the people who keep the lights on in this country and guarantee security of supply. We all owe them a debt of gratitude.
	In the gas system, the cold weather produced record demand on consecutive days last week, with demand at 468 million cubic metres-a figure that is far higher than the previous record. The surge in demand came alongside four major losses of supply from Norwegian fields as a result of the very cold weather there. It is worth saying that, despite some of the statements that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells was making last week, apart from a short period last week when there were restrictions for a small number of companies that had discounted gas as part of interruptible contracts, the gas supply has been operating for households and businesses as it would on any day of the year. We need to keep monitoring the situation as the winter progresses and we always keep the system under review-it is very important that the Government do that-but the system has shown resilience despite the strain of cold weather and supply loss.
	Why has the system shown such resilience over the past 10 days or so? One of the reasons is the action taken by this Government in the last four years, since the fire that occurred at the Rough storage facility in 2005-06, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. On peak days last week, we were able to serve almost a third of our demand-142 million cubic metres out of a total demand of 468 million-through new sources of supply that simply did not exist four or five years ago. Those include the Langeled pipeline from Norway, the BBL pipeline from the Netherlands, and the South Hook and Dragon liquefied natural gas terminals at Milford Haven. That did not happen by accident. It was our agreement with Norway in 2005 that made the pipelines possible. The work that was done with Qatar and the investors in Milford Haven-billions of pounds of investment was provided-made possible the LNG terminals, and it was the willingness to ensure an open market in the UK made those investments possible.
	Those things could happen only because of the proactive role of Government in enabling the new facilities. The chief executive of National Grid, Steve Holliday, said last week that
	"we've seen the benefits of the investment of the last five years where the UK can now import 30 per cent. of its gas internationally that it couldn't five years ago".
	So the central claim that the hon. Gentleman has been making-at least in the television studios, when they have invited him on-which is that this Government have not acted is, of course, nonsense. I welcome the tone that he employed today much more than I welcome the tone that he uses in the television studios. I hope that he learns something from the experience of the past few weeks. Playing politics with energy security does no good to anyone, and it is exactly the kind of tactic that turns people off politics.

Edward Miliband: I am sure that my hon. Friend forms a formidable duo with the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace). She makes an important point. One thing that I find curious about the Opposition's proposals on planning is that they say that the Government should set the planning statement and that the Secretary of State should continue to exercise judgment about specific applications. I think it would be better for my hon. Friend's and the hon. Gentleman's constituents if those decisions were taken independently, so that the people who put forward the overall plans on gas storage were not also making the individual judgments. I maintain that the planning reforms that I have talked about are important.
	Let me say one more thing about gas. I think that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells has found that there are no easy answers to this issue. The difficulty is finding a balance between the role of the market and role of the state in ensuring security of supply. After last year's winter, we considered, along with Ofgem and the National Grid, whether the balance was right and whether more needed to be done on how the market worked. That led to two changes, the first of which was in the information that is available to the market to ensure that suppliers understand the short-term supply-and-demand situation and the availability of gas from storage. The second change was an increase in the effective penalties on shippers who fail to deliver gas that they are contracted to provide.
	We continue to consider whether more needs to be done on the operation of the market, and it is right that we do that. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells did not necessarily refer to this point, but it was probably implicit in his speech, and it is even more important given that two thirds of the world's gas suppliers are in Russia and the middle east. It is important to note that that is not the case for our gas suppliers; that is why our diversity is so important. It was because of our interest in these issues that we asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks) to produce his important report on international energy security, to which we will respond before the general election. I think that the most important conclusion from that report was about the strength that we get from the diversity of our energy sources. That is a strategy that he pursued very successfully as Minister for Energy. It has borne fruit and we continue to pursue it. As part of the road map to 2050 that we are preparing, we are considering whether more needs to be done. His report emphasised the importance of long-term contracts, which are more common on the continent, as well as a variety of other issues.
	It is also worth citing what my right hon. Friend said in his report about the notion of strategic storage, which some people have put forward, effectively suggesting that the Government should build their own storage:
	"Any decision to proceed with strategic storage would risk displacing investment in commercial storage, as commercial players would see the existence of strategic storage, which they would suspect might be accessed simply in response to high prices...as undermining their investment case."
	What is good about my right hon. Friend's report is that it shows that there are no easy answers in this area, while charting a way forward for the Government. We will respond to his report, and over the coming months to Ofgem's project discovery work, including any recommendations, alongside the 2050 road map in the spring.
	Let me deal with electricity, which the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) mentioned in his speech. Diversity is very important here. About 18 GW of power supplies will go out of commission towards the end of this decade, while 20 GW are under construction or have planning permission. It is interesting to note that when E.ON made its decision to delay the Kingsnorth coal-fired power station, it cited the fact that there was not the expected demand in the system.
	Because the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells has tried to make a cottage industry out of the issue of energy unserved, let me explain why I believe he is engaging in the alarmism that he said he was going to try to avoid and putting a wrong spin on the matter. The Redpoint analysis, published at the time of the national policy statements, updated the figures from the low-carbon transition plan. I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy if he does not have one. It says that energy unserved, which the hon. Gentleman made such an issue of, will be zero in 2017; it says that the capacity margin will be 15 per cent. in 2017 and will stay above 10 per cent. for the rest of the decade.
	What that illustrates is why the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the original graph is so alarmist. Demand and supply projections for seven or more years out are always going to be subject to significant change. They are not really a forecast of our security of supply position, but information for the market to respond to, which it does. That is what we have found in the past. When I came into this job, people were saying that 2015 would be a big problem; the hon. Gentleman is now saying that the problem will come in 2017, but I have given him updated projections today. I urge him to engage seriously in the debate.

Edward Miliband: Because, as I have just explained to the hon. Gentleman, that figure is not of the seismic importance that he claims. He obviously has his alarmist rather than his consensual hat on at the moment. I have to tell him that alarming people about energy issues is not a mature way to conduct politics. He needs to recognise that the analysis we produced in July as part of the low-carbon transition plan has since been updated. I have already said that I will send him a copy of the update, as he has obviously not read it himself; I urge him to read all the documents that my Department produces. This particular information can be found in figure 32, in a technical annex relating to a carbon capture and storage demonstration; it shows energy unserved not at the level mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but at zero in 2017. The hon. Gentleman needs to understand that taking one figure, pretending that it is somehow a prediction of power cuts, which it is not, and then asking why I did not mention it is not helpful. I did not mention it because he has afforded it an importance way out of proportion to what it suggests.
	Diversity is very important to us and to our electricity system, but what do we need to maintain our low-carbon diversity? Before the hon. Gentleman's intervention, I said that I would address that question. The real question for Britain is: do we carry on with a high-carbon security of supply or do we move to a low-carbon security of supply? That cannot be taken for granted, because it will be very challenging for any Government. All the low-carbon sources that I think we need-renewables, clean coal and nuclear-are challenging, and we need a combination of strategic Government and markets to make them happen.
	On renewables, that is why we have reformed the planning system, taken action on the grid, stepped in to work with the European Investment Bank to finance onshore wind, increased the offshore renewables obligation and announced-last week-the biggest offshore wind expansion programme of any country in the world.
	The hon. Gentleman complained about our record on renewables, and I wish that our country had done better on onshore wind. We have not done better, in part because of the planning system and people's objections, but it so happens that we are the world leader in offshore wind. Throughout the world, offshore wind generates about 2 GW, and a bit less than half of that is in the UK. The exciting thing about my announcement last week-I pay tribute to the Crown Estate for its work on the matter-is that it mentioned another 32 GW of offshore wind generation-in a world where there is only 2 GW. That is the scale of the ambition that we can have for offshore wind in this country.

John Gummer: I refer the House to my declaration of interest.
	I very much take on board the Secretary of State's remark that we want the facts and a robust analysis. That is why I start by repeating what I said earlier-that I congratulate him on changing the way we look at these things compared with the 10 years that preceded the last White Paper. The trouble was that we were working on the basis of a White Paper without any figures-nearly all the dates and targets had been removed, with only the 50-year one left. We therefore had a situation in which nobody could have their feet held to the fire because nobody had a target that was serious and could be kept to. I honour the right hon. Gentleman very much-this may be embarrassing for him-because he has changed the whole atmosphere and we can now have a proper debate about energy in a way that was not possible for a long period. He is suffering for that, and so are the rest of us.
	Starting on a personal level, I recently had a problem in my constituency that arose because somebody on the Army base did not fill a tank, which meant that a lot of my constituents did not have any gas. That was nothing to do with a national problem or any of the arguments that we have heard today, but simply a local problem. When we talk about energy security, let us realise that there are some local issues, as well as national ones, and that they are very serious for people.
	How do we organise ourselves so that there is the diversity that we need, not only in terms of supply but as between the various forms of generation? I worry that we have had too much emphasis on process and far too little on outcomes. I am a great believer in renewable energy; I do not think anybody could criticise me on that score. Ultimately, however, we should be aiming to have the most cost-effective way of getting energy security and lowering our emissions. It may be better to provide more support for low-carbon generation than to put all our eggs in the basket of renewables. I say that not because I want fewer renewables but because we have to get there quickly. I would like to see a greater emphasis on outcomes than on process. For example, people in the British wind energy industry often argue on the basis of how wonderful wind is. I want to have the lowest carbon production of energy that we can have-I do not mind how we do it. Tomorrow the mix will be different from what it is today, but let us ensure that we do not miss the important issue, which is how we get the energy we need.
	That leads me to say that I am terribly disappointed with the Liberal Democrats, but I suppose I should expect that. It is no good their sitting there saying, "We are against nuclear power", when in fact it is an essential part of any delivery. In my constituency we are very keen on having it, but I say to the Secretary of State that he is wrong about the planning arrangements. He is right about the first bit, which we all agree on-making the national decision about safety and need-but it is essential that there be a small local inquiry by somebody who is not one of his people but an independent person who can listen to the local issues.
	That is not going to happen. We are to have another lot of apparatchiks under another lot of quangoists, who will come around looking at us sniffily. Dame Deirdre Hutton will be around again, telling everybody what to do. My constituents want an opportunity to say in public what they want in relation to the dualling of the bypass and the other issues that affect them. They want to know that they will be listened to by an independent person who then advises the Government, not by some Government-appointed apparatchik.
	We must also reduce demand. I am a great enthusiast for a lot of the things that the Secretary of State is doing, but many of the details are not right yet. I was appalled to discover that the carbon commitment arrangements will exclude very large numbers of very big users because of the peculiar decision that if they do not have a half-hour meter arrangement, it does not matter how much they produce. That means that a large chain of small shops could use exactly the same total amount of energy as a smaller chain with larger shops, but one will pay and the other will not. The effect will be serious, and it is a stupid thing to have happened. I am sure that he had nothing to do with it, but I merely say to him that it can be changed rapidly. Although charming, the explanation that I received is not really very effective.
	I hope that the Secretary of State will accept that those of us who have largely supported his activities will have to be, to use his word, robust in sometimes saying to him, "This is just not right." If we are going to win this battle, we all have to be prepared to speak out and speak clearly. That leads to the fundamental question of how we can reduce our use of energy and produce it efficiently so that our national security position is improved. That requires a much faster move towards smart metering and smart grids. He has done us a great favour by getting on with it, but we need to get on with it very much faster. There are various ways to do that, and I hope he will be open to some dramatically different suggestions as to how to achieve that aim. We also have to do more to ensure that when we have opportunities to reduce our energy use, we take them. I am not sure that we are doing that fast enough, and I want to press the urgency of the matter on him.
	I wish to say something to my Front-Bench colleagues. We will not achieve what we need to unless we use every single possible weapon. There is a way of increasing our efficiency in Europe that will make a very big difference if we are only prepared to work with our colleagues in the European Union. We have to be tough about that, because we really must use the EU as effectively as possible to deliver that end.
	I say to the Government that they should move faster and accept that they are behindhand because of what has happened so far. I say to members of my own party that we have to use every mechanism possible. I say to the Liberal Democrats that it is not acceptable to go on with a theological position that is intolerable, intolerant and unacceptable-but they are, after all, Liberal Democrats, so we expect that from them. They will pay a big price for it at the next election, when people realise that the real opponents of combating climate change are Liberal Democrats.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who speaks with great authority on these matters. I want to step back from the problems caused by the cold weather snap and try to examine some of the more strategic issues.
	Energy security is inescapably a duty of Governments, and this Government have let matters drift. We have heard in this debate about the decline in oil and gas reserves in British waters, the retirement of coal-burning stations because of emissions controls, and the predicted decommissioning of nuclear stations.
	What is even more worrying is what is coming at us in the opposite direction because of tightening world markets and global trends, one of which is the simple fact of population increase. The population of the world is still going up by nearly 1 million every five days. If these people are to have any kind of standard of living, they are going to use increasing quantities of energy; during the next 50 years, the human race will probably consume more energy than it has used in the entire course of human history to date.
	There are also political developments, with countries such as China seeking to secure their energy supply chain in a new scramble for Africa. Countries such as Russia and Venezuela are explicitly using their energy reserves as a foreign policy weapon. All that adds up to an extremely worrying global situation, just as the Government have completely taken their eye off our domestic needs. There is also our economic vulnerability; we are already running a very big balance of payments deficit in energy. That will get worse. We have had a currency devaluation, which has made us all poorer in world terms. That will not cure the problem of the financial deficit in energy unless the Government take action.
	I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) was rather too kind about the Government's record. We will all remember-or should do-the energy White Paper of 2003. In my view, it was one of the most irresponsible documents ever issued by a modern Government. It effectively shut off nuclear power development completely. Sadly, the right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) is not attending this debate. She might be an extremely incompetent plotter against the Prime Minister, but she was a great deal worse as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Not only did she issue that dreadful White Paper, but she sold Westinghouse, the last of the British hopes for nuclear power generation.
	The consequences of that White Paper have been to reduce us from being a possible world leader to the status of sub-contractor. That is extremely serious at a time when even the Government are trying to restart our nuclear programme. All that was known at the time about our decommissioning of nuclear reactors and the decline in gas and oil reserves, but instead of a concerted programme, there has been an absurd over-reliance on renewables.
	I am not "anti" all renewables, and I have an interest to declare in a possible hydro scheme, but as for wind power, I noticed that the big windmill on the M4 near Reading that sometimes goes round was stationary during the recent cold snap. It is not only unwise but dangerous to suppose that renewables can make up the gap. That can be done only by nuclear power, which is virtually carbon-free in operation and is a mature technology that has been with us for more than 50 years. We could have been a world beater. There is a missed opportunity there, which we must hasten to correct. The problem of storage must be addressed, but this solution could overcome the problem of security. Uranium supplies are virtually inexhaustible, and we have large storage facilities for plutonium and enriched uranium in this country.
	My last request is for the Government to participate in the next generation-the generation 4-nuclear power station programme worldwide, so that once more we can export not just energy but nuclear technology.

William Cash: I would be delighted if the Bill proposing the referendum on electoral reform included a long title so vague as to enable us to get a referendum in on the other matters too. In constitutional terms, it is ludicrous for us to have a series of referendums on matters such as those just referred to, but not on the central question lying at the heart of these issues about, which is who governs us and how.
	It is all too boring or exacting for the establishment and others, including some parts of the media, to examine the question of what lies at the heart of parliamentary sovereignty, particularly when we can watch Ant or Dec or "The X Factor" although our democracy is on the line. Parliamentary sovereignty is the elephant in the room, but not even the room can be mentioned if it has the word "Europe" on its portal. Ignoring parliamentary sovereignty, the freedom of choice and the democracy hat it represents is like discussing religion without reference to the Bible or the Koran.
	No one has the right to ignore this issue, because it affects every person in this country. It is not settled policy and it cannot be laid to rest. It affects the voter in every way. It affects the rule of law, the role of the judiciary and that of the civil service, and only in Parliament can it be resolved. The Government's position, in contrast to that of the Conservative party, is one of the abandonment of the fundamental truths of that statement. The Government have duped the British people into dangerous waters, and that betrayal is represented by the signing and enactment of the Lisbon treaty. Indeed, a few years ago I and the then Foreign Secretary, now the Justice Secretary, exchanged questions for more than six months about whether Parliament and an Act of Parliament could prevail over the prerogative. Eventually he had to climb down.
	I remind the House that, for the first time in recent memory, the Conservative party has been, to all intents and purposes, united in supporting parliamentary democracy and sovereignty, rejecting not only the constitutional treaty but its terrible twin, the Lisbon treaty. Furthermore, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has reaffirmed my continuous call, made for more than a decade, for an association of nation states, which would be founded on the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. He has proposed a sovereignty Bill in that framework, because he recognises the danger that we are in. I have addressed the exact framework of a Bill for that purpose in my United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill, to be published tomorrow, which will be on the Order Paper and among the papers delivered to all hon. Members. My Bill has been considered and vetted by pre-eminent constitutional authorities and its text is encompassed on but one sheet of a parliamentary page, in a mere five short clauses.

William Cash: I am delighted to confirm that I believe and hope that that will be case. I should mention, however, that as long ago as 1986, I proposed a supremacy of Parliament amendment to the Single European Act, which included the words:
	"Nothing in this Act shall derogate from the Sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament."
	Had that amendment been accepted by the then Speaker and voted through, when we had a substantial majority in the House, it would have retained for this country a veto over the working time directive, as well as over many other examples of damaging legislation under that Act, including recent legislation relating to the undermining of the City of London. That issue will become ever more apparent when the full implications of the European Commission's proposals for the financial regulation of the banks and financial services within the jurisdiction of the European Court become entrenched. Those proposals will effectively be unamendable without the kind of proposals that I am putting forward for the defence of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament.
	Indeed, in 1986 I was even refused the right to move my amendment. On three more recent occasions, however, not only have the House authorities, with advice, facilitated the moving of my supremacy of Parliament amendments-in relation to the then Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill in 2006 and, shortly afterwards, the Constitutional Reform Bill and other constitutional matters-but on those occasions my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney gave instructions to the Whips for my amendments to be endorsed by the party as a whole following the debate, overriding the Government's implementation of respective European legislation, and asked me whether our Whips could put forward Tellers to support my proposals.
	On every occasion, the Government have opposed those amendments, including by specifically voting against my sovereignty of Parliament amendments in respect of the Lisbon treaty, which is a policy that is nothing short of appeasement. I therefore applaud the proposals made by my right hon. Friend for a sovereignty Bill, as does the whole Conservative party. However, the question remains how far such a sovereignty Bill would extend. The proposals and issues that I will now address will certainly need to be encompassed by any such proposals of my own which I know will have the backing of a substantial majority of the Conservative party in Parliament and elsewhere, and, to judge from recent opinion polls, well over 70 per cent. of the electorate.
	I am putting forward a proposal based on the rejection of European government, albeit with co-operation on European trade, and on endorsing global trade and political co-operation and democracy in our national interest, with a reversion to an association of nation states in Europe, which is what I believe the people of this country really want. Indeed, the original White Paper that led to the European Communities Act 1972 clearly stated that we had to retain the veto as part of our parliamentary sovereignty, in order to sustain the vital national interests of the voters of the United Kingdom, and not only for our sake, but
	"to preserve the very fabric of the European Community itself."
	Why so? Simply because there is no greater vital interest than freedom of choice at the ballot box in every part of the European Community-now the European Union. That has been severely undermined by successive treaties and by this Government's betrayal in signing and enacting the consolidating Lisbon Treaty, which encompasses all the treaties. Now is the time, in our manifesto, to reassert and reaffirm the full measure of parliamentary sovereignty of the United Kingdom in line with our constitutional law and practice. We want not theology but practicality; we want not EU bureaucracy but UK democracy. It is not anti-European to be in favour of democracy.
	What are the constitutional issues that we have to address? In particular, they are the assertion of European Union institutions, including the European Commission and the European Court, that they have ultimate jurisdiction over our law-making, our laws and, specifically and dangerously, our constitution and our Parliament. Other countries, too, are concerned about those assertions, but we in the mother of Parliaments have a leadership role to play in defending the rights of our voters to continue their freedom to make their choice at the ballot box without let or hindrance. That must be the case irrespective of majority voting, irrespective of the lethal power of the former so-called co-decision procedure in the European Parliament-now ominously described as the "ordinary legislative procedure"-and irrespective of the assertions of the European Court of Justice. That is no less of an issue than when we had to resist invasions of another kind that threatened to undermine our sovereignty and our nationhood in the dark days of the 1930s and 1940s.
	Until 1972 we were moving towards greater democracy, but we have been moving away from it since then, and we must redress the balance in terms of our parliamentary sovereignty now, in the coming general election. Our constitutional case law is crystal clear. The judgments of Lord Denning in MacCarthys  v. Smith, Lord Diplock in Garland  v. British Rail and Lord Laws in the Metric Martyrs cases all correctly assert the tradition and history of this country for centuries-certainly since the Reform Acts of the mid-19th century, when modern democracy was born-that the latest Westminster enactment, clearly and expressly stated, prevails against any past enactments inconsistent with it or overriding it, including those that are derived from the implementation of the European Communities Act 1972. That is specifically the case when the words
	"notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972"
	are placed in the inner bailey of a Westminster enactment.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney has made it clear that he regards the repatriation of economic competitiveness as an imperative requirement, just as Jefferson rightly insisted on states' rights. My right hon. Friend stated only this week that his watchword is "responsibility". That approach has lain at the heart of my efforts of the past 25 years to insist upon parliamentary sovereignty as the fulcrum of our representative government.
	The problem is now acute, because, although the European Court of Justice has asserted its claims for more than 40 years in the cases of Handelsgesellschaft, Van Gend en Loos and Costa  v. ENEL, those were but puny assertions until the enactment of the Lisbon treaty, which the Government have treacherously driven through. That treaty includes declaration 19, which gives guidance to our courts and others and which asserts and affirms the case law of the European Court. That case law involves the Court asserting its jurisdiction over not only our laws and law-making, but our constitution, which belongs to the British people, the voters at the ballot boxes and no one else.
	It would be irresponsible to ignore this issue, and it would be equally irresponsible to allow the current state of affairs and the assertions of the European Court and the Lisbon treaty to be embedded by the effluxion of time. We should recall that other seminal constitutional change, in the beneficial direction of greater democracy, became embedded as this Parliament evolved through the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries as we moved towards greater democracy. It is unforgivable to allow the current undermining of our parliamentary sovereignty, away from our hard-won democracy, not to mention the necessity for serial radical reform of the procedures of the House. The gutting and guillotining of Bills and the Government's refusal to devote proper time for Bills to be debated undermines our parliamentary sovereignty. I regret to have to say that I had to describe our Parliament in my evidence to the Wright Committee as "a sham" for that reason. I would add to those issues the way in which we have been invaded by these assertions from the European institutions.
	We need to restore our democracy, and reasserting parliamentary sovereignty is essential in that cause. To prevent discussion in the media or the BBC would be, and is, an outrage, and it would be irresponsible merely to endorse the principle of sovereignty without dealing with the problem in its entirety. For if we were merely to fill half the cup of sovereignty by enacting an inadequate sovereignty Bill in our response to the European integration process, the Lisbon treaty and the assertions of the European Court, we would be handing an opportunity to our own courts, including the Supreme Court, in the interpretation of any present or future legislation, to endorse the assertions of the European Court over our constitution and law-making in the light of the declaration of the primacy of European law set out in declaration 19 in an annex to the Lisbon treaty.
	We must explicitly and expressly restrain our judiciary from having any opportunity of so interpreting European legislation and applying the constitutional assertions of the European Court, precisely so that we may explicitly preserve our own parliamentary sovereignty and with it the rights of the British people, who have fought and died over many generations, with blood and treasure. This is their Parliament, not our Parliament, and we not only have no right to take away their heritage, but we have a duty to preserve it.
	We need, in the words of John of Gaunt, "a moat defensive" to the invasion of this House. As John of Gaunt clearly stated-